# Why am I not a liberal? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 12, 2004, 9:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-am-i-not-a-liberal/264122 "2004-09-12T09:31:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2004, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-am-i-not-a-liberal/264122/81 "2004-09-13T07:17:24Z")
> [@Snake Spirit](#): > > “And the difference is???” > > Stepped in your own shit again, didn’t you? What did I do ‘again?’ 😕 Complaining about me in the Pit and having people laugh at you must’ve been traumatic, because you keep throwing it at me like you caught me doing something. Are you Marley Boat Veterans for Truth? :smack: You and **Max** are the only people in the 7800+ posts I’ve made here who have such complaints about my style, so until the silent majority comes out of the woodwork - because, you know, people here are _so_ shy when it comes to voicing their dislike for others - I’m gonna guess I’m not the problem. **The Difference, Which I’ve Already Explained, Is This** : 1. I do not attack people for ‘not holding a liberal position.’ I do not hold ‘standard’ liberal positions myself, for example, on hate-crime laws. I think those laws are pretty ridiculous. On First Amendment issues in particular I tend to be pretty libertarian. I don’t hold the most liberal position on getting troops out of Iraq and split with the anti-war movement because of it when “bring the troops home now” became a popular slogan. 2. So, I can’t be attacking people for not holding to the liberal party line, and I think most people here know I can disagree with somebody without attacking them. I’ve already done it in this thread, and I did it in the thread **Max** cites as proof of my nastiness. 3. **Max** makes it sound like - and probably says flat-out, but I’m not running through this whole thread to check - that liberals attack people _not because they disagree with them, but because they have a real problem with it whenever anyone breaks from the liberal ‘party line’ in any way_. I don’t do that, and the fact that I don’t hold the liberal position on anything should make this obvious. Does this not make sense in some fundamental way I’m not grasping? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2004, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-am-i-not-a-liberal/264122/82 "2004-09-13T07:21:51Z")
> [@JShore](#): > > Well, that “misconception” has been spread by libertarians themselves since IMHO they seem more often to worry about their wallet than their zipper when push-comes-to-shove in the voting booth or in terms of their general influence on the political scene (although some of you have shown a growing disgust for Bush, finally). I know that Cato does, for example, get into issues of drug legalization and such but they seem to spend a lot more of their resources on the economic issues. > > I think part of the reason for this, by they way, is the funding from these various libertarian think-tanks like Cato comes largely from corporations or a few wealthy conservative oilmen who really care much more about the economics issues than the civil libertarian ones (to put it mildly…some probably don’t give a flying crap about civil liberties issues). If you want people to identify libertarianism more with the civil liberties issues, you might need to work harder to avoid libertarianism getting hijacked by these folks. Wow, speaking of misconceptions… If wealthy corporations and oil tycoons were contributing to libertarian causes and think-tanks, libertarians would be viable competitors on the political stage. They are not. You do the modus tolens. I don’t know how you manage to look over the shoulders of libertarians in the voting booth, but when I vote, it is typically this way: I vote for all Libertarian Party candidates no matter who they are (with rare exceptions); then, in races without libertarians, I vote Democrat for social offices like Sheriff or Judge, and Republican for fiscal offices like Auditor or Teasurerr. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2004, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-am-i-not-a-liberal/264122/83 "2004-09-13T07:22:48Z")
> [@roger thornhill](#): > > ‘Non-pejorative’ use of ‘ignorant’. I must remember that line next time I take someone down a peg or two! Maybe it sounds like I’m double-talking here. But it’s true. Like Dawkins says, ignorance is not a crime. Sometimes you don’t know stuff. We usually don’t call that ignorance because it’s developed a negative connotation, but it is. I’m very ignorant on almost any subject related to engineering, for example. Don’t know jack about it. > [@](#): > > Regarding ‘wicked’, I think he was speaking at least as much to people’s moral stance/philosophies as to their grasp of the ‘facts’ of evolution. […] I believe this is as much a moral as an academic criticism. It probably is, yes. But he’s not saying all creationists are wicked, he’s saying that he wonders if some are are being dishonest to mislead people. I think this would apply more to speakers and people who have something to gain by convincing people to support them. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2004, 7:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-am-i-not-a-liberal/264122/84 "2004-09-13T07:27:16Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > I am sure many of those are classic liberals, which are practically the same as conservatives. Regarding your independent clause, you have no reason to be sure of that, at least none that you’ve cited. Note that Pew’s analysis said that there were only certain issues on which the liberals leaned libertarian, such as mistrust of government. And frankly, one need not be a libertarian to take a cautious approach to a faceless bureaucracy with enough arsenal to destroy the earth. Regarding your dependent clause, it is a factual error. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2004, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-am-i-not-a-liberal/264122/85 "2004-09-13T07:30:29Z")
> [@2Sense](#): > > I make no pretense of being an expert on you. I didn’t mean to imply that you weren’t an active poster nor that you can’t admit any mistakes. I was just offering my opinion of some of your posts here on libertarianism. It seems to me that, when discussing that topic so dear to you: freedom, your logic, as Spock would say, is uncertain. It is always upon presentation of compelling argument or logic that I do indeed change my mind and admit error. I do speak passionately about my philosophy, but I am amply capable of defending it by the rigorous test of reason. If you find a flaw in my logic, then point it out specifically. Otherwise, do not assume a disparity where none exists. ---
**Author:** ![SnakeSpirit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snakespirit/32/7271_2.png) [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2004, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-am-i-not-a-liberal/264122/86 "2004-09-13T07:41:45Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > What did I do ‘again?’ 😕 > > Complaining about me in the Pit and having people laugh at you must’ve been traumatic, because you keep throwing it at me like you caught me doing something. Are you Marley Boat Veterans for Truth? :smack: You and **Max** are the only people in the 7800+ posts I’ve made here who have such complaints about my style, so until the silent majority comes out of the woodwork - because, you know, people here are _so_ shy when it comes to voicing their dislike for others - I’m gonna guess I’m not the problem. Like I’ve always said, and no one was laughing, you make assumptions about people in your posts that you have no business making unless you are “The Amazing Randi.” Since Day 1. And you still don’t get it. > [@Marley23](#): > > **The Difference, Which I’ve Already Explained, Is This** : > > 1. I do not attack people for ‘not holding a liberal position.’ I do not hold ‘standard’ liberal positions myself, for example, on hate-crime laws. I think those laws are pretty ridiculous. On First Amendment issues in particular I tend to be pretty libertarian. I don’t hold the most liberal position on getting troops out of Iraq and split with the anti-war movement because of it when “bring the troops home now” became a popular slogan. > 2. So, I can’t be attacking people for not holding to the liberal party line, and I think most people here know I can disagree with somebody without attacking them. I’ve already done it in this thread, and I did it in the thread **Max** cites as proof of my nastiness. > 3. **Max** makes it sound like - and probably says flat-out, but I’m not running through this whole thread to check - that liberals attack people _not because they disagree with them, but because they have a real problem with it whenever anyone breaks from the liberal ‘party line’ in any way_. I don’t do that, and the fact that I don’t hold the liberal position on anything should make this obvious. > > Does this not make sense in some fundamental way I’m not grasping? Yes. Maybe you have a few minority non-line liberal positions, but I never see you attacking people on first amendment issues. I haven’t seen you attack anyone except on issues that were far-left liberal… or personal. But, of course, with your mentality, I’m sure you would say that this: > [@](#): > > Complaining about me in the Pit and having people laugh at you must’ve been traumatic, because you keep throwing it at me like you caught me doing something. Are you Marley Boat Veterans for Truth? :smack: is also not an attack. Keep throwing it up to you? Bullshit. Cite? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2004, 8:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-am-i-not-a-liberal/264122/87 "2004-09-13T08:02:10Z")
> [@SnakeSpirit](#): > > Like I’ve always said, … you make assumptions about people in your posts that you have no business making unless you are “The Amazing Randi.” Since Day 1. And you still don’t get it. Go ahead and find the other people complaining about me then. You didn’t hesitate to chime in that you think I’m a jerk, why would anyone else? The business you’re upset about was in a Pit thread devoted to YOU. > [@](#): > > and no one was laughing [Yes, they were.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=268165&page=3&pp=50&highlight=snakespirit) > [@](#): > > Maybe you have a few minority non-line liberal positions, but I never see you attacking people on first amendment issues. Read the thread linked to and you’ll find me talking to someone who argues “we have too much freedom,” which I think is inconsistent with what you said about me earlier. > [@](#): > > But, of course, with your mentality, I’m sure you would say that this: is also not an attack. Nope, it’s a joke. :eek: I guess you’re saying I attacked you unprovoked just because you said people who think like me are “obnoxious, offensive, controlling, fascist, communistic, anti-freedom and totally bonkers.” In which case, I agree, making a Swift Boat Vets joke was way out of line. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2004, 10:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-am-i-not-a-liberal/264122/88 "2004-09-13T10:07:10Z")
> [@Snakespirit](#): > > Maybe you have a few minority non-line liberal positions, but I never see you attacking people on first amendment issues. :smack: Oh, duh- sample bias. We don’t debate First Amendment issues as often as we debate things like abortion, Iraq, and terrorism-related issues. Two first amendment related threads. > **[So How Far Does One Push The First Amendment Envelope?](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=271307)** > > Source: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/US/internet\_sensitive\_info\_040812-1.html Now I’ve been reading Young’s web site for years. While some of the links posted first appear to come close to tinfoil hat conspiracy thinking, they do offer an... > **[The impact of grisly images on children](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=256596)** > > The SF Chronicle is running a front-page story in Sunday’s paper discussing whether children should be protected from the real and grisly images of war (or, based on similar past stories, anything “grisly” that are currently in the news). There have... I think the French headscarf ban is dumb (not only that, I agree with **Sam Stone** ) [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4348505&postcount=76](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4348505&postcount=76) ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2004, 10:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-am-i-not-a-liberal/264122/89 "2004-09-13T10:46:16Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Regarding your independent clause, you have no reason to be sure of that, at least none that you’ve cited. But we just don’t know, do we, right? And according to the prevailing conservative meme, “could be” is just as good as “must be”, so until you prove otherwise, there must be some classic liberals in that poll. ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2004, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-am-i-not-a-liberal/264122/90 "2004-09-13T10:50:01Z")
> [@Max Castle](#): > > Have I called anyone names or given any indication that that’s my intention? That you would think this seems to lend creadance to my point that liberals automatically take a negative view towards anyone who holds different views. From your first post: ‘The liberal is only willing to debate against a person who holds the stereotypical right-wing conservative position.’ ‘Why do liberals react with such hostility to an educated, enlightened person with progressive views that happen to be slightly different than their own?’ ‘Why has liberalism evolved into an ideological straightjacket that mostly attracts dangerously fanatical demagogues?’ In case you don’t know, **this is name-calling**. There are millions of liberals around the World – you have given no evidence to justify such wild assertions about them. And it is a infantile and unpleasant trick to insult liberals, then say ‘liberals automatically take a negative view towards anyone who holds different views’. How about I state that Max Castle is ‘stupid’ and ‘prejudiced’, plus he always disagrees with me? Presumably you are going to disagree with that? Well that ‘proves’ I was right. > [@Max Castle](#): > > I’m sorry if my OP came across as a little harsh; it was kind of late when I wrote it. But I’d really like to understand how liberals think. Thanks for the apology. If you want to discuss things with people, don’t start out by insulting them. > [@Max Castle](#): > > I’d like to think that I could call myself a liberal without signing my own death warrant. It seems blindingly obvious to me that there is a large subset of liberals who feel that anyone who doesn’t toe the party line shouldn’t be allowed a voice in public debate and the formation of public policy, and should probably be locked up to prevent the spread of their ignorant reactionary views. Well that apology didn’t last, did it? It seems blindingly obvious to me that Max Castle just spouts biased stereotypes. Cite? Your postings in this thread. If you had said “I’ve spoken to a few acquaintances, and they were all unwilling to debate”, that would be based on your personal experience. We could discuss e.g. whether your location, or the level of education of your acquaintances made a difference. > [@Max Castle](#): > > I was speaking mostly about the SDMB. Sorry if that wasn’t clear. Since the phrase ‘I’m talking mainly about the SDMB’ was missing, plus a complete lack of cites, yes that wasn’t clear. And now for your ‘evidence’: > [@glee](#): > > Please give examples of the ‘ideological straightjacket’ and the ‘dangerously fanatical demagogues’ in this liberal organisation. > [@Max Castle](#): > > Michael Moore. Al Franken. **WOW! These guys are members of the UK Liberal Democrat party?!** Or didn’t you even bother to follow my link? > [@glee](#): > > Can’t you see the above is a meaningless platitude? Please cite any politician (preferably a liberal) who has said ‘Government should be any larger than necessary to carry out its essential functions’. > [@Max Castle](#): > > Of course it’s a meaningless platitude. did I ever say it wasn’t? Gosh. Well you posted it as an example of what you believe. How many of your beliefs other are meaningless? > [@glee](#): > > Well I assumed by ‘lots of high-tech weaponry’ that you meant nuclear weapons, intercontinental missiles with chemical warheads and so on. What exactly did you mean, and would you want North Korea, Iran etc to have it? > [@Max Castle](#): > > No, I mean planes, helicopters, artillery, etc. You know, all the equipment used in convential warfare. And while every nation has a right to defend itself, North Korea and Iran are dictatorships, and therefore not legitimate nations. In case you missed it, nuclear weapons have been used in conventional warfare. And it’s fascinating how your mind works. You mean that any dictatorship is not legitimate and has no right to defend itself? > [@Max Castle](#): > > Gahndi succedded because the British realized they couldn’t keep a nation of millions under their thumb for much longer. If they hadn’t granted India it’s independence, there most likely would have been a long, bloody war. > MLK succedded because the general population was becoming more aware of the raw deal that minorities were receiving. Social change was coming soon, he just helped hurry it along. > Ditto for Mandela. What splendid logic and understanding of history. You’re saying that because Gandhi led an extensive pacifist campaign, the British were scared of a war?! How do you think the US general population became aware of the raw deal? Could it have **anything** to do with Martin Luther King’s non-violent protests?! > [@Max Castle](#): > > But anyways, that has nothing to do with my statement that “Pacifism and egalitarianism are hopelessly naïve beliefs.” Pacifism means rejecting war outright, under any circumstances. Egalitarianism means ignoring real differences between individuals and enforcing a completely nonsensical ideal of “equality” on a populace. I don’t see how any of your examples apply to either of these ideals. Perhaps your graduate studies could include a dictionary: Pacifism: the belief that war \*\*and violence \*\* are morally unjustified and that all disputes should be settled by peaceful means Egalitarianism: the principle of equal rights and opportunities for all Do please explain how your ‘real differences between individuals’ applies in your ideal society. Who should have less rights and opportunities? How do we tell them apart? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2004, 11:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-am-i-not-a-liberal/264122/91 "2004-09-13T11:04:56Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > But we just don’t know, do we, right? And according to the prevailing conservative meme, “could be” is just as good as “must be”, so until you prove otherwise, there must be some classic liberals in that poll. Nonsense. Do you honestly mean to say that — in Great Debates at Straight Dope of all places — you are willing to leap from “we just don’t know” to “there must be”? Rebutting that would be like kicking a corpse. What else you got? ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2004, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-am-i-not-a-liberal/264122/92 "2004-09-13T17:20:08Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Wow, speaking of misconceptions… If wealthy corporations and oil tycoons were contributing to libertarian causes and think-tanks, libertarians would be viable competitors on the political stage. They are not. You do the modus tolens. I don’t know how you manage to look over the shoulders of libertarians in the voting booth, but when I vote, it is typically this way: I vote for all Libertarian Party candidates no matter who they are (with rare exceptions); then, in races without libertarians, I vote Democrat for social offices like Sheriff or Judge, and Republican for fiscal offices like Auditor or Teasurerr. Well, I guess we are using the term in a different way. I don’t really care too much about the libertarian party which honestly doesn’t have much of influence on American politics (not surprising given that pure libertarianism is IMHO a eutopian political philosophy that communism that few people subscribe to). I am talking about libertarian-leaning think-tanks like Cato and National Center for Policy Analysis which have a large influence on American politics. These folks probably aren’t interested in supporting the libertarian party because that wouldn’t give them diddley-squat worth of influence and they can get a lot done by getting the Republicans to do their bidding for them on economics issues which, as I noted, seems to be what the issues that they really care about. > [@roger thornhill](#): > > For what is a liberal to make of a group of people (usually large, often indeed a minority) who disagree with them - whether on this point or on others? What it usually boils down to is that those holding a different viewpoint are stupid or ignorant. Well, most people with a strong point of view tend to think that others who don’t share it need to be educated to come around to it. (Look at **Liberal** and his libertarian comrades who want to re-educate practically the entire Western world to the virtues of libertarianism since the entire modern Western world has turned down the “wrong path” toward a fairly strong government that provides many services and social safety nets.) But, I find it quite ironic to hear you making this statement in light of the current administration, which has the same contempt but in a much more pernicious and dangerous way. Not only do they think that they know what’s right and we don’t but rather than trying to educate us, they are actually trying to keep us ignorant. They have done this through many means including: (1) Unprecedented secretiveness, including a re-interpretation by Ashcroft of responding to FOA [Freedom of Information Act] requests which can roughly be summarized as “when in doubt, don’t release.” (Under Janet Reno, the interpretation was “when in doubt, release.” Another example is the classification of most of the details of the missile defense tests, which had previously been unclassified and had allowed groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists to point out the obvious flaws in the tests. (2) Attempts to limit Congressional oversight (one example again being of the missile defense program). (3) A lowering of the public discourse with unprecedented use of deceptive rhetoric and semantic abuse to mislead people. (4) Attempts to withhold (or edit) scientific information from the public on issues such as global warming and various public health issues, as documented by the Union of Concerned Scientists. So, yes, liberals may sometimes be condescending about people being ignorant of certain facts and such and may want to try to educate them. However, it is primarily from the conservative side that we have seen an unprecedented attempt to keep people ignorant, to actively mislead them, and so forth. This to my mind is much more destructive to our democracy. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2004, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-am-i-not-a-liberal/264122/93 "2004-09-13T18:00:18Z")
> [@JShore](#): > > Well, I guess we are using the term in a different way. I don’t really care too much about the libertarian party which honestly doesn’t have much of influence on American politics (not surprising given that pure libertarianism is IMHO a eutopian political philosophy that communism that few people subscribe to). Strangely, I am carrying on two concurrent discussions. In one, I am told that classical liberalism so permeates the nation’s pool of journalists that a reputable and credentialed polling agency like Pew has inexplicably failed to account for them all; and in the other, I am told that it is a pie-in-the-sky philosophy popular only among a small band of fools. > [@](#): > > I am talking about libertarian-leaning think-tanks like Cato and National Center for Policy Analysis which have a large influence on American politics. These folks probably aren’t interested in supporting the libertarian party because that wouldn’t give them diddley-squat worth of influence and they can get a lot done by getting the Republicans to do their bidding for them on economics issues which, as I noted, seems to be what the issues that they really care about. Cato’s corporate sponsorship comprises only 25% of its operating revenue. The vast majority of its funds come from some 14,000 individuals. Regarding the perception that it is primarily concerned with economic issues is to equivocate over the term “economic”. It is concerned with the broadest possible economic praxes as described by Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises in his magnum opus, [Human Action](http://www.mises.org/humanaction.asp). He defines an economic praxis as any social transaction in which both agents exercise both freedom and volition. That means that there can be no coercive encumbrances on either party, whether laws of prohibition or central economic policies. Any social transaction that takes place without both the freedom and volition of both parties is an expression of some will other than their own. Cato places equal emphasis on both political and economic freedom. For Cato’s own take, see [this page](http://www.cato.org/about/about.html). ---
**Author:** ![SnakeSpirit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snakespirit/32/7271_2.png) [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2004, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-am-i-not-a-liberal/264122/94 "2004-09-13T21:40:51Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Complaining about me in the Pit and having people laugh at you must’ve been traumatic, because you keep throwing it at me like you caught me doing something. Are you Marley Boat Veterans for Truth? :smack: Strange. I’ve only started two pit threads, and neither one of them had _ **anything** _ to do with you. In fact, **YOU** first complained about **ME** in the pit: complaining about something that had already been resolved by moderators in GD: [in the 4th post of the thread!](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5101651&postcount=4) Using the same ‘passive aggressive’ techniques you accused me of. Then, as I recall, you passive-aggressively told me to [“Go fuck yourself”](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5101791&postcount=11) in the same thread in the pit. A real intellectual. Looks like you are the one that is traumatized. You bring up the term, and you initiate personal attacks on me. That sounds like traumatized to me. Funny, whenever I attack one of your posts, you turn around and make a _personal_ attack at me. Haven’t you read the rules? “Attack the post, not the poster?” What does it take for you to get a clue? I’m not sure if you do that out of insecurity, or to cover up that you can’t make a perfect answer to my allegations, or cause you are the one that is traumatized. I certainly am not. I recall when this first started, you made a personal attack on me **out of the blue** , and people in the thread said, ‘What the fuck is his problem?’ I mentioned we had an argument (see next paragraph) and you were pissed off at me still and I _would have left it at that_, but you had to try and trash me to death. You needed your revenge, your justification. You keep bringing up the same thing, over and over. OK, I called you an asshole in GD (passive-aggressively) because you seem to be fond of **ass** uming things about people you don’t even know. (I see it as your M.O., still.) I was repremanded by the mods, I apologised and said I wouldn’t do it again. Get over it. > [@Marley23](#): > > I’m gonna guess I’m not the problem. Guess again. I’d ask you to go for best two out of three guesses, but I don’t feel it’s fair to hijack this thread with **your personal** problems. If you want to try to trash me, go to the pit. I’m very trashable, so it shouldn’t be hard. Have fun playing with… ---
**Author:** ![SnakeSpirit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snakespirit/32/7271_2.png) [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2004, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-am-i-not-a-liberal/264122/95 "2004-09-13T22:02:52Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Go ahead and find the other people complaining about me then. Negative proof? > [@Marley23](#): > > You didn’t hesitate to chime in that you think I’m a jerk, why would anyone else? I never called you a jerk. > [@Marley23](#): > > The business you’re upset about was in a Pit thread devoted to YOU. The pit thread you’re referring to was [about another poster](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=268165), but you certainly tried to make it about me! And failed. Plus, I’m not the one upset here. > [@Marley23](#): > > I guess you’re saying I attacked you unprovoked just because you said people who think like me are “obnoxious, offensive, controlling, fascist, communistic, anti-freedom and totally bonkers.” In which case, I agree, making a Swift Boat Vets joke was way out of line. :dubious: No, I guess you attacked me unprovoked because I made a post criticizing your post. Shame on me. To all others: I apologise for this post, posting after I said I wouldn’t help hijack this thread. I just don’t like being lied about. S ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2004, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-am-i-not-a-liberal/264122/96 "2004-09-13T23:08:15Z")
> [@SnakeSpirit](#): > > Using the same ‘passive aggressive’ techniques you accused me of. You’ve got a problem with understanding when people are being humorous. > [@](#): > > A real intellectual. We were in the Pit, which is not exactly a Parisian salon. > [@](#): > > Funny, whenever I attack one of your posts, you turn around and make a _personal_ attack at me. Haven’t you read the rules? “Attack the post, not the poster?” What does it take for you to get a clue? If the Mods think I said anything inappropriate, I trust they’ll tell me. Or report my post if you have a problem with it. [quote] I’m not sure if you do that out of insecurity, or to cover up that you can’t make a perfect answer to my allegations, or cause you are the one that is traumatized. I certainly am not. > [@](#): > > I mentioned we had an argument (see next paragraph) and you were pissed off at me still and I _would have left it at that_, but you had to try and trash me to death. You said you wouldn’t link to that thread (because you didn’t want to embarrass me further) and I called you on it. > [@](#): > > OK, I called you an asshole in GD (passive-aggressively) because you seem to be fond of **ass** uming things about people you don’t even know. (I see it as your M.O., still.) I was repremanded by the mods, I apologised and said I wouldn’t do it again. Didn’t you just do it again now? 😕 > [@](#): > > Negative proof? I’m not asking you to prove a negative. I’m asking you to find proof of what you’re saying. > [@](#): > > No, I guess you attacked me unprovoked because I made a post criticizing your post. Shame on me. Interpreting the JOKE I made as a personal attack is a little oversensitive of you. I do think "the people … that are representing themselves as “Liberals” (with a capital “L”) these days are obnoxious, offensive, controlling, fascist, communistic, anti-freedom and totally bonkers. Cite? Check out this thread for starters" counts as a bit of a provocation. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2004, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-am-i-not-a-liberal/264122/97 "2004-09-13T23:12:20Z")
Sorry, meant to add “…counts as a bit of a provocation [for a sharp reply].” And that if you’d like to drop it, go ahead. What I lied about I don’t know, but I suspect I never will regardless. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2004, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-am-i-not-a-liberal/264122/98 "2004-09-14T00:08:27Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > It is always upon presentation of compelling argument or logic that I do indeed change my mind and admit error. I do speak passionately about my philosophy, but I am amply capable of defending it by the rigorous test of reason. If you find a flaw in my logic, then point it out specifically. Otherwise, do not assume a disparity where none exists. ## You don’t have to look very far for an example of disparity between your rhetoric and reality. Read your post again. I spoke of opinion based on observation and you reduce that to mere assumption. Cute trick. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2004, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-am-i-not-a-liberal/264122/99 "2004-09-14T00:12:27Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Strangely, I am carrying on two concurrent discussions. In one, I am told that classical liberalism so permeates the nation’s pool of journalists that a reputable and credentialed polling agency like Pew has inexplicably failed to account for them all; and in the other, I am told that it is a pie-in-the-sky philosophy popular only among a small band of fools. No…But, you are missing my point here. My point is that, while the libertarian party itself is small, the ideas of groups like Cato and others have been enormously important. And, they have a web of alliances with conservatives and Republicans…In fact, as I was trying to argue, the libertarian cause has been co-opted by these groups so that, while they give some lip-service to various civil libertarian issues, they spend most of their time on the sort of economics issues where they align with the conservatives and Republicans. > [@](#): > > Cato’s corporate sponsorship comprises only 25% of its operating revenue. The vast majority of its funds come from some 14,000 individuals. Regarding the perception that it is primarily concerned with economic issues is to equivocate over the term “economic”…Cato places equal emphasis on both political and economic freedom. For Cato’s own take, see [this page](http://www.cato.org/about/about.html). I would conjecture that if you actually looked at Cato’s influence on the political scene, whether it be by their cites in the media, testimony before Congress, or whatever, you would find that the large majority are in support of the “conservative” position on an economics issue, not a “liberal” position on some sort of civil liberties thing like drug legalization or what have you. And, while it does seem to be true that direct money from corporations compromise a minority of Cato’s revenues, the individuals include some very wealthy individuals with corporate connections. One of the co-founders is David Koch, an oil baron and the Koch family foundations and [in through at least the early 90s it was a big contributor](http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=2060): > [@](#): > > The Cato Institute received $6.5 million from the Koch Family foundations over a four-year period (1986-90). > > … > > In 1992 alone, Koch foundations’ contributions totaled $700,000,[37] fully 70 percent of the Institute’s 1993 budget.[38] Continuing Koch support for the Cato Institute is also substantial. Cato president Edward Crane asserts that the Kochs “are very large contributors…[but] it would not be a devastating blow if they stopped supporting us.” Nevertheless, $1.75 million of Cato’s $3.2 million 1990 budget – or over 50 percent – came from the Kochs.[39] More recently, their funding seems to have shifted: > [@http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Cato\_Institute](#): > > In their book No Mercy, University of Colorado Law School scholars Stefancic and Delgado describe a shift in Cato’s patron base over the years. Cato’s main philanthropic backing has come from the right-wing Koch, Lambe and Sarah Scaife foundations. But today, Cato “receives most of its financial support from entrepreneurs, securities and commodities traders, and corporations such as oil and gas companies, Federal Express, and Philip Morris that abhor government regulation.” > > Financial firms now kicking in big checks to Cato include American Express, Chase Manhattan Bank, Chemical Bank, Citicorp/Citibank, Commonwealth Fund, Prudential Securities and Salomon Brothers. Energy conglomerates include: Chevron Companies, Exxon Company, Shell Oil Company and Tenneco Gas, as well as the American Petroleum Institute, Amoco Foundation and Atlantic Richfield Foundation. Cato’s pharmaceutical donors include Eli Lilly & Company, Merck & Company and Pfizer, Inc. … And, while Cato has been critical of the civil liberties record of the Bush Administration, they have also occasionally had some strange reactions for a group that talks so much of liberty: > [@](#): > > Sometimes, however, it has proven willing to set aside its libertarian principles - such as supporting a Bush administration moves to restrict civil liberties as part of the “war on terror.” In 2002, a Cato news release endorsed new Justice Department guidelines giving greater latitude to FBI agents to monitor Internet sites, libraries and religious institutions. “As reported in the press, the new FBI surveillance guidelines present no serious problems,” declared Cato legal affairs analyst Roger Pilon, a former Reagan administration official who writes frequent Cato commentaries defending property rights and opposing affirmative action that have appeared in publications such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and the Los Angeles Times. Pilon added that “law enforcement monitoring of public places is simply good, pro-active police work that violates the rights of no one.”[5] When I think of Cato, I don’t think of the ACLU out there defending civil liberties. I think of a group that has primarily made its mark by aggressive defense of **property rights** , attacks on government programs like welfare and affirmative action, and attacks on environmental and health regulations on issues ranging from smoking to climate change. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2004, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-am-i-not-a-liberal/264122/100 "2004-09-15T02:36:42Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > But, I find it quite ironic to hear you making this statement in light of the current administration, which has the same contempt but in a much more pernicious and dangerous way. Not only do they think that they know what’s right and we don’t but rather than trying to educate us, they are actually trying to keep us ignorant. They have done this through many means including: Along the lines of this post of mine, Senator Waxman has just released a report on [Secrecy in the Bush Administration](http://democrats.reform.house.gov/features/secrecy_report/index.asp). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-am-i-not-a-liberal/264122.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-am-i-not-a-liberal/264122.md?page=6)